NEW Benchmark scene (Max 8 Vray RC3 required)

[priad]

humm depressing time really!!!

[EricCamper]

Sweet.....Well...on another note. my X5355 should be in today. took all the advice and put ii into play.....but just went with the 4gb Ram and got the dual quad 5355.....so my machine just went from 10 minutes to under 1 when rc4 comes out...Nice

[EricCamper]

Also....my co worker did the scene with his Single 80551 P4 3.2 machine....2 gb ram....and he got the EXACT time I did...10m 2s ???? and mine was a dual 3.06....Is it just because the processors are better after two years. He is getting my machine after I get my new one...and I just want to make sure he isnt getting something slower..lol..

thanx

[flipside]

sure wouldnt help with that benchmark tho.... but wow.. what a rendertime and what a machine.

vergefio:
Very nice.
Are you able to pump one out in RC3 so we can compare time?

My time went from 1m58 to 1m34s from RC3 to RC4!

[DaForce]

Thats a nice speed improvement!!

[jacksc02]

dont tease people too much flipside. Some arent as lucky as you

[flipside]

And I leave for a ski holiday this saturday!

[jacksc02]

im going to the beach! ha haaa

[vergefio]

hey guys, i'm in the middle of rendering a big project so i think i can't go back to rc3 for at last 1 week

I wanna go to the beach too! the small problem is that the nearest is 200km far

[meanadam]

Ok, we are in with the new machine thanks to the result of all this testing.

QX6700, 4gb @ 64bit - same as above = 160 sec

AMD 4400, AM2, 4 gb @ 32bit = 515 sec
AMD 4200, 939, 2gb@32bit = 524 sec

AMD 4400, 939, 2gb @32bit = 615sec *EDIT*
THIS CHIP WAS RUNNING AT 1.8mhz, NOT 2.2.... some bios or MB issues with these 4400? Checking some other things.

[DaForce]

No bios issues im aware of. How did you know it was running at 1.8ghz.. from what vray told you or what you say in the bios or another program.
Vray isnt always 100% right.

[meanadam]

Experimenting with chip speeds and over clocking today.

This is 1 of 5 matched computers we have. For some reason the 4400 had a MHZ multiplier of 200x9.0=1.8 NOT 200x11.0=2.2 like all the others (including 4200). Maybe it is just MY setup. But seems on "AUTO" this system didn't do the right thing. I know others had benchmarks showing 4400 slower than 4200s, so wonder if they have same issues.

[DaForce]

Hmm very odd.

Well generally the 4200 and 4400 shouldnt be that great of a difference. As only the cache differs between the 2 which doesnt have a huge impact on render times.. more so in games.

[panofish]

my computer is getting old!

Holy crud!
I can't wait to get a new computer... My old amd 2600+ is getting very old!
It took 24 minutes 10 seconds to complete the render.
I am planning on getting a mac pro, but rumor has it, that it is due for an announcement of new architecture with improved performance.
Therefore, I have to wait for the new mac pro and I figure it will cost me $2500 to $3500.

Any advice on this plan is welcome and appreciated.

[n6]

hey n6, lets see you overclock your way down to under 2mins

Just wait for me to build a dual quad core Xeon machine then overclock it and I m pretty sure I will be under 30sec